EMBARQ DSL - is this considered a "normal" deal? Experiences withEMBARQ DSL?

[Embarq_Jenny]

Doc;165921 Wrote:
> I've been thinking of getting DSL. EMBARQ offers what at first glance
> seems like a decent deal 19.95/mo but looking at the "fine print" I'm
> a bit put off.
>
> -$99 "early termination fee". - So, if you decide the service stinks
> and find a better provider, you're obliged to pay them for
> approximately the equivalent of 5 months of service to get out of it.
> They don't specify what "early" means as far as earlier than what.
>
> But...
>
> -EMBARQ may cancel services or susbstitute similar services at its
> sole discretion without notice - How the hell about that. Are they
> gonna pay me a $99 early termination fee?
>
> -No minimum level of speed is guaranteed. - How cutting-edge of them
> to buck the trend of "quality assurance". And if you decide the
> product is no good, not only do you not get a refund, as per above
> you're obligated to pay them for months of crappy service you never
> received.
>
> -Taxes, fees and surcharges are additional, subject to change without
> notice and BASED ON NON-PROMOTIONAL, STANDARD MONTHLY RATE. - So,
> they're going to play "let's pretend" and tax you on more than you're
> paying.
>
> -Additonal restrictions apply - Well, I'm sure that can only be good
> news.
>
> Oh, and they charge 14.95 to ship a modem and a $15 activation fee.
>
> Is this all "normal" as far as such services? Anyone here using
> EMBARQ? Thoughts?
>
> Any providers out there that don't have all these kinds of caveats?

Hi my name is Jenny R. and I work with Embarq Customer service. I saw
that you had some questions on the High Speed before you signed up. I
wanted to clear up any questions that you may have...if you want you
can email me directly at smnp.jenny.r@embarq.com or you can Private
message me. Some of the questions that you had addressed, was about
taxes, on the "up to" 768 speed the total taxes on your billing would
be around $10-$12 per month. and that includes your local services.
The reason they have that your speed is not guaranteed, is because they
are "Up to speeds" meaning that you may not always hold a 768K
connection , it may drop at times. The contract to get the 19.95
pricing is 1 year. any cancellation before such time will result in a
ETF of $99. Also the S&H of modem is 14.95 and the activation fee is
$15 which you stated, this is a one time charge. If you have anyother
questions, please get in contact with me, and i'll be happy to assist
you in anyway that i can.

Thanks
Jenny R.




--
Embarq_Jenny

[Tomes]

"Doc" ...
> I've been thinking of getting DSL. EMBARQ offers what at first glance
> seems like a decent deal 19.95/mo but looking at the "fine print" I'm
> a bit put off.
>
> -$99 "early termination fee". - So, if you decide the service stinks
> and find a better provider, you're obliged to pay them for
> approximately the equivalent of 5 months of service to get out of it.
> They don't specify what "early" means as far as earlier than what.
>
> But...
>
> -EMBARQ may cancel services or susbstitute similar services at its
> sole discretion without notice - How the hell about that. Are they
> gonna pay me a $99 early termination fee?
>
> -No minimum level of speed is guaranteed. - How cutting-edge of them
> to buck the trend of "quality assurance". And if you decide the
> product is no good, not only do you not get a refund, as per above
> you're obligated to pay them for months of crappy service you never
> received.
>
> -Taxes, fees and surcharges are additional, subject to change without
> notice and BASED ON NON-PROMOTIONAL, STANDARD MONTHLY RATE. - So,
> they're going to play "let's pretend" and tax you on more than you're
> paying.
>
> -Additonal restrictions apply - Well, I'm sure that can only be good
> news.
>
> Oh, and they charge 14.95 to ship a modem and a $15 activation fee.
>
> Is this all "normal" as far as such services? Anyone here using
> EMBARQ? Thoughts?
>
> Any providers out there that don't have all these kinds of caveats?

Dunno if this is still relevant but I just subscribed to this NG and found
this post....

I have Embarq. The only problem that I have with them is that they do not
support Usenet. Not at all. I had to go find this motzarella.org to use.
Tomes

[Rich Greenberg]

In article <fs753s$q7q$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
Tomes <ask.me@here.net> wrote:

>Dunno if this is still relevant but I just subscribed to this NG and found
>this post....
>
>I have Embarq. The only problem that I have with them is that they do not
>support Usenet. Not at all. I had to go find this motzarella.org to use.

Thats one problem. Another is that they do not have any facilities for
dialup for backup when DSL is down or you are traveling.

--
Rich Greenberg N Ft Myers, FL, USA richgr atsign panix.com + 1 239 543 1353
Eastern time. N6LRT I speak for myself & my dogs only. VM'er since CP-67
Canines:Val, Red, Shasta & Casey (RIP), Red & Zero, Siberians Owner:Chinook-L
Retired at the beach Asst Owner:Sibernet-L

[DerbyDad03]

On Feb 25, 11:45*pm, "Dave" <no...@nohow.not> wrote:
> "Doc" <docsavag...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1c312c4c-536c-4af2-8bce-d9421d9c9365@m23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > I've been thinking of getting DSL. EMBARQ offers what at first glance
> > seems like a decent deal 19.95/mo but looking at the "fine print" I'm
> > a bit put off.
>
> > -$99 "early termination fee". - So, if you decide the service stinks
> > and find a better provider, you're obliged to pay them for
> > approximately the equivalent of 5 months of service to get out of it.
> > They don't specify what "early" means as far as earlier than what.
>
> That's the real dealbreaker there.
>
>
>
> > But...
>
> > -EMBARQ may cancel services or susbstitute similar services at its
> > sole discretion without notice - How the hell about that. Are they
> > gonna pay me a $99 early termination fee?
>
> > -No minimum level of speed is guaranteed.
>
> (snip)
>
> Ummmm, you are shopping for DSL. *They have to state that no minimum level
> of speed is guaranteed. *Speed of DSL is dependent on line length and line
> condition. *Both are unknown quantities unless you want to pay the phone
> company to run a brand new line from the CO to your computer area. *(You
> don't want to know what that would cost.)
> Best the phone company can do is ESTIMATE line length from the CO to your
> house, and then give you a rough estimate of what speed your DSL -might- be,
> after line is provisioned and modem is installed. *To over-simplify, shorter
> wire length equals faster connection, assuming that the line condition is
> OK.
> This is not weasel wording by the phone company. *The phone company can not
> tell you what speed your connection will be until AFTER DSL is "live" at
> your house. *Therefore, no minimum level of speed is guaranteed. *And yes,
> they have to spell that out in writing, just so they won't get sued when
> that ultra-reliable 800K connection was advertised as "up to 1.5M" or
> something like that, and some ignorant consumer misinterpreted that as a
> speed guarantee...
> I'm not calling you ignorant, btw. *It's just that, if you understood the
> technology better, you wouldn't be worried about the phone company stating
> that no minimum level of speed is guaranteed. *All they are really saying is
> "We don't have a crystal ball".
>
> > -Taxes, fees and surcharges are additional, subject to change without
> > notice and BASED ON NON-PROMOTIONAL, STANDARD MONTHLY RATE. - So,
> > they're going to play "let's pretend" and tax you on more than you're
> > paying.
>
> No, here they are saying that they are going to jack your rates way up after
> a few months. *Typical, and another dealbreaker.
>
>
>
> > -Additonal restrictions apply - Well, I'm sure that can only be good
> > news.
>
> > Oh, and they charge 14.95 to ship a modem and a $15 activation fee.
>
> That's about right. *Sometimes DSL providers will run specials where the
> equipment charge and activation fee are waived. *But $30 total shipped and
> activated? *That's actually pretty cheap.
>
> > Is this all "normal" as far as such services? Anyone here using
> > EMBARQ? Thoughts?
>
> > Any providers out there that don't have all these kinds of caveats?
>
> Based on what you wrote, I would steer clear of embarq. *DSL is awesome,
> MUCH more reliable than cable. *Comparing DSL to cable is not really fair.
> Cable can be faster, but DSL is more for people who care about CONSISTENT
> connection speed. *I've seen the same cable modem connection run faster than
> DSL and SLOWER than DSL, in the same day. *It totally depends on what your
> neighbors are up to. *With DSL, it's always fairly fast, and there are no
> slowdowns, like right after schools let out for the day and the heavy
> downloads begin. *Now some moron is going to pipe up and say "but it's all
> shared bandwidth". *Yup, and with DSL, it is shared at a level where it
> doesn't affect YOUR connection. *So it's more accurate to say that cable
> bandwidth is shared, whereas DSL bandwidth is more or less dedicated to YOUR
> line.
>
> If you can get DSL from a good provider without a huge early termination
> fee, I'd suggest you try it. *But don't expect a speed guarantee upfront,
> and DO expect to be much happier with DSL than you will ever be with a cable
> modem. *Unfortunately, where we live, we can't get DSL, so I'm stuck with
> cable modem. *:( *-Dave


As long s this thread has resurfaced, I'll comment....

re: DSL is awesome, MUCH more reliable than cable.

We shouldn't make generalizations.

I switched from my phone company's DSL to my cable provider's all-in-
one package many years ago and I can't recall an outage other than
when an ice storm hit the area and everything was down. I do recall,
however, having issues with my DSL service - from outages to slow
connections - numerous times. I'd rank my cable service - and the tech
support they provide - much higher than I would my former DSL service.

[Anthony Matonak]

DerbyDad03 wrote:
....
> As long s this thread has resurfaced, I'll comment....
> re: DSL is awesome, MUCH more reliable than cable.
> We shouldn't make generalizations.

I've got Time Warner (they ate, er, purchased my local cable company)
and their outages aren't any worse than the old Verizon DSL I had
before.

Tech support is about equal. With DSL I got a live person (after an
hour or two on hold) who would read from a script that always ended
with "It's a problem with your equipment". It was never a problem with
my equipment, by the way, and I wasn't going to buy a new computer
every time the DSL went down (as suggested).

With Time Warner I would get an immediate message saying something to
the effect of "Due to the high volume of calls, we won't answer the
phone right now."

Both companies usually fix their problems within a day and I don't
see more than one or two outages a month (on average).

The big difference is the speed. I went from 768 kbps DSL to 6000 kbps
on cable. I did a quick look at Verizon and see they have a 3000 kbps
offering but that is still half the speed of cable and they can't offer
this kind of speed where I live. The further you are away from the phone
office, the slower your connection speed.

In my opinion, most DSL is just not fast enough to be called broadband.

If I recall correctly, the phone companies were ordered to offer
broadband internet as part of some deregulation deal. They were supposed
to be installing fiber optics but they managed to weasel out of it by
redefining DSL as broadband. This was a decade or two ago and I hear
they are actually starting to install fiber in some selected cities
today.

Not where I live, of course. I'm not going to hold my breath either.
It may well be another 10 or 20 years before they get out to my neck
of the woods.

Anthony
--
Then again... Anything is better than dialup. :)

[Edwin Pawlowski]

"Anthony Matonak" <anthonym40@nothing.like.socal.rr.com> wrote in message
>
> The big difference is the speed. I went from 768 kbps DSL to 6000 kbps
> on cable. I did a quick look at Verizon and see they have a 3000 kbps
> offering but that is still half the speed of cable and they can't offer
> this kind of speed where I live.

In some areas you can get 6000 kbps. Once the FIOS is complete it can be
even faster, I'm told.

>
> In my opinion, most DSL is just not fast enough to be called broadband.

Your opinion does not count.

> Then again... Anything is better than dialup. :)

Yes, that would be broadband

[John A. Weeks III]

In article <47e890d6$0$12555$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
Anthony Matonak <anthonym40@nothing.like.socal.rr.com> wrote:

> In my opinion, most DSL is just not fast enough to be called broadband.

Speed has nothing to do with broadband. Broadband is a networking
technology, while speed is a characteristic of a connection. You
can have very slow broadband, just as you can have very fast
baseband. Or you can have any speed you want on some other
networking technology.

-john-

--
======================================================================
John A. Weeks III * * * * * 612-720-2854 * * * * * *john@johnweeks.com
Newave Communications * * * * * * * * * * * * http://www.johnweeks.com
======================================================================

[Rod Speed]

John A. Weeks III <john@johnweeks.com> wrote
> Anthony Matonak <anthonym40@nothing.like.socal.rr.com> wrote

>> In my opinion, most DSL is just not fast enough to be called broadband.

> Speed has nothing to do with broadband.

Wrong, as always.

> Broadband is a networking technology,

Wrong, as always.

> while speed is a characteristic of a connection. You can have very slow broadband,

Wrong, as always.

> just as you can have very fast baseband. Or you can have
> any speed you want on some other networking technology.

Networking using bluetooth aint broadband, stupid.

[Kurt Ullman]

In article <64t05lF2d4c9aU1@mid.individual.net>,
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

> John
> > while speed is a characteristic of a connection. You can have very slow
> > broadband,
>
> Wrong, as always.
You obviously haven't had experience with Brighthouse broadband
(g0. Before I yelled at them and they did something, my d/l speed was
actually slower than my upload speed.

[Rod Speed]

Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> John A. Weeks III <john@johnweeks.com> wrote
>>> Anthony Matonak <anthonym40@nothing.like.socal.rr.com> wrote

>>>> In my opinion, most DSL is just not fast enough to be called broadband.

>>> Speed has nothing to do with broadband.

>> Wrong, as always.

>>> Broadband is a networking technology,

>> Wrong, as always.

>>> while speed is a characteristic of a connection.
>>> You can have very slow broadband,

>> Wrong, as always.

> You obviously haven't had experience with Brighthouse broadband
> (g0. Before I yelled at them and they did something, my d/l speed
> was actually slower than my upload speed.

Thats just ****ed broadband and nothing to do with his stupid claims.

[Samantha Hill - take out TRASH to reply]

Anthony Matonak wrote:
>
> The big difference is the speed. I went from 768 kbps DSL to 6000 kbps
> on cable. I did a quick look at Verizon and see they have a 3000 kbps
> offering but that is still half the speed of cable and they can't offer
> this kind of speed where I live. The further you are away from the phone
> office, the slower your connection speed.
>
> In my opinion, most DSL is just not fast enough to be called broadband.


I have 3000 kbps service, and I am way far away from the switching
station (they put a relay in). It works at 3000 kbps, also.

Cable service around here is limited to Astound or Comcast. I know
nothing about Astound, but I have helped several friends with their
Comcast cable internet, and around here, seriously, the service STINKS.

(If you are in the San Francisco Bay Area, I can wholeheartedly
recommend my ISP, www.sonic.net, to be what I consider to be the world's
best ISP.)

[Jim Redelfs]

In article
<john-FE7596.06160325032008@sn-radius.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
"John A. Weeks III" <john@johnweeks.com> wrote:

> Speed has nothing to do with broadband.

Uh, the term is opposed to "narrowband", neither of which were coined
until only a few years ago. "Broadband" was coined to provide
differentiation from the more common dial-up. Speed most certainly has
to do with "broadband".

> Broadband is a networking technology

I disagree. "Broadband" is a generic term to describe any of SEVERAL
high-speed connectivity technologies.

> speed is a characteristic of a connection.

That goes without saying.

> You can have very slow broadband

Sure, relative to a higher rate broadband.

> just as you can have very fast baseband.

"Baseband"? My spell-checker doesn't even recognize that one. That is
the first I've heard of it.

Words mean things. Broadband infers high - or higher - speed relative
to older, much slower technologies such as dial-up.

> Or you can have any speed you want on some other
> networking technology.

Ethernet? Wi-Fi? Bluetooth? Divining Rods?
--
:)
JR

[John A. Weeks III]

In article
<jim.redelfs-15BF6A.20283625032008@news.phx.highwinds-media.com>,
Jim Redelfs <jim.redelfs@NOSPAMredelfs.com> wrote:

> In article
> <john-FE7596.06160325032008@sn-radius.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> "John A. Weeks III" <john@johnweeks.com> wrote:
>
> > Speed has nothing to do with broadband.
>
> Uh, the term is opposed to "narrowband", neither of which were coined
> until only a few years ago. "Broadband" was coined to provide
> differentiation from the more common dial-up. Speed most certainly has
> to do with "broadband".
>
> > Broadband is a networking technology
>
> I disagree. "Broadband" is a generic term to describe any of SEVERAL
> high-speed connectivity technologies.
>
> > speed is a characteristic of a connection.
>
> That goes without saying.
>
> > You can have very slow broadband
>
> Sure, relative to a higher rate broadband.
>
> > just as you can have very fast baseband.
>
> "Baseband"? My spell-checker doesn't even recognize that one. That is
> the first I've heard of it.

So, have you ever heard of 10BaseT Ethernet? The "Base" part
means that it is a baseband signal.

Baseband networking is where the signal is anchored at zero hertz
and goes up from there. 10BaseT uses the first 10 megahertz of
the bandwidth. Broadband means that the signal is not anchored
to zero, and the signal can be relocated in referece to the zero
point. This is important when you are doing multiplexing (ie,
carrying several signals on one line). Just like you can have
10BaseT, which is 10-megabit baseband Ethernet over twisted
pair, you can also have 10BroadT, or other speeds, or other
physical cable mediums.

> Words mean things. Broadband infers high - or higher - speed relative
> to older, much slower technologies such as dial-up.

I agree that words mean things. That is why I attempted to help
educate you on what Broadband means.

-john-

--
======================================================================
John A. Weeks III * * * * * 612-720-2854 * * * * * *john@johnweeks.com
Newave Communications * * * * * * * * * * * * http://www.johnweeks.com
======================================================================

[Michael Black]

"John A. Weeks III" (john@johnweeks.com) writes:
> In article
> <jim.redelfs-15BF6A.20283625032008@news.phx.highwinds-media.com>,
> Jim Redelfs <jim.redelfs@NOSPAMredelfs.com> wrote:
>
>> In article
>> <john-FE7596.06160325032008@sn-radius.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
>> "John A. Weeks III" <john@johnweeks.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Speed has nothing to do with broadband.
>>
>> Uh, the term is opposed to "narrowband", neither of which were coined
>> until only a few years ago. "Broadband" was coined to provide
>> differentiation from the more common dial-up. Speed most certainly has
>> to do with "broadband".
>>
>> > Broadband is a networking technology
>>
>> I disagree. "Broadband" is a generic term to describe any of SEVERAL
>> high-speed connectivity technologies.
>>
>> > speed is a characteristic of a connection.
>>
>> That goes without saying.
>>
>> > You can have very slow broadband
>>
>> Sure, relative to a higher rate broadband.
>>
>> > just as you can have very fast baseband.
>>
>> "Baseband"? My spell-checker doesn't even recognize that one. That is
>> the first I've heard of it.
>
> So, have you ever heard of 10BaseT Ethernet? The "Base" part
> means that it is a baseband signal.
>
> Baseband networking is where the signal is anchored at zero hertz
> and goes up from there. 10BaseT uses the first 10 megahertz of
> the bandwidth. Broadband means that the signal is not anchored
> to zero, and the signal can be relocated in referece to the zero
> point. This is important when you are doing multiplexing (ie,
> carrying several signals on one line). Just like you can have
> 10BaseT, which is 10-megabit baseband Ethernet over twisted
> pair, you can also have 10BroadT, or other speeds, or other
> physical cable mediums.
>
>> Words mean things. Broadband infers high - or higher - speed relative
>> to older, much slower technologies such as dial-up.
>
> I agree that words mean things. That is why I attempted to help
> educate you on what Broadband means.
>

But you didn't.

I still have no clue why "baseband" is in this discussion, since it
has no relevance.

"Broadband" means high bandwidth. It's basically a shortened version of
"broadbandwidth".

"Baseband" basically means a signal that isn't riding on top of something.
A video signal out of your VCR is a "baseband" signal, but if you hook your
your VCR to your tv set via channel 3, then the signal is no longer
baseband; the baseband signal is modulating the channel 3 carrier so it's
now radio frequency. "Baseband" is using band in a vein similar to "CB band",
not bandwidth, but what part of the spectrum.

"Broadband" doesn't care how the signal is delivered, so long as it is
high bandwidth. But the name does imply high speed, because otherwise
you don't get the high bandwidth.

Michael

[Tony Hwang]

John A. Weeks III wrote:

> In article
> <jim.redelfs-15BF6A.20283625032008@news.phx.highwinds-media.com>,
> Jim Redelfs <jim.redelfs@NOSPAMredelfs.com> wrote:
>
>
>>In article
>><john-FE7596.06160325032008@sn-radius.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
>> "John A. Weeks III" <john@johnweeks.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Speed has nothing to do with broadband.
>>
>>Uh, the term is opposed to "narrowband", neither of which were coined
>>until only a few years ago. "Broadband" was coined to provide
>>differentiation from the more common dial-up. Speed most certainly has
>>to do with "broadband".
>>
>>
>>>Broadband is a networking technology
>>
>>I disagree. "Broadband" is a generic term to describe any of SEVERAL
>>high-speed connectivity technologies.
>>
>>
>>>speed is a characteristic of a connection.
>>
>>That goes without saying.
>>
>>
>>>You can have very slow broadband
>>
>>Sure, relative to a higher rate broadband.
>>
>>
>>>just as you can have very fast baseband.
>>
>>"Baseband"? My spell-checker doesn't even recognize that one. That is
>>the first I've heard of it.
>
>
> So, have you ever heard of 10BaseT Ethernet? The "Base" part
> means that it is a baseband signal.
>
> Baseband networking is where the signal is anchored at zero hertz
> and goes up from there. 10BaseT uses the first 10 megahertz of
> the bandwidth. Broadband means that the signal is not anchored
> to zero, and the signal can be relocated in referece to the zero
> point. This is important when you are doing multiplexing (ie,
> carrying several signals on one line). Just like you can have
> 10BaseT, which is 10-megabit baseband Ethernet over twisted
> pair, you can also have 10BroadT, or other speeds, or other
> physical cable mediums.
>
>
>>Words mean things. Broadband infers high - or higher - speed relative
>>to older, much slower technologies such as dial-up.
>
>
> I agree that words mean things. That is why I attempted to help
> educate you on what Broadband means.
>
> -john-
>
Hmmm,
Where is this idea coming from broadband infers to high speed?
Broadband infers carrying capacity(voice, data, video, anakog or
digital)/ Ever heard of wideband? Higher capacity does not necessarily
mean higher speed. Ever heard of throughput?

[trader4@optonline.net]

On Mar 25, 11:39*pm, Tony Hwang <drago...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> John A. Weeks III wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > <jim.redelfs-15BF6A.20283625032...@news.phx.highwinds-media.com>,
> > *Jim Redelfs <jim.rede...@NOSPAMredelfs.com> wrote:
>
> >>In article
> >><john-FE7596.06160325032...@sn-radius.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> >> "John A. Weeks III" <j...@johnweeks.com> wrote:
>
> >>>Speed has nothing to do with broadband.
>
> >>Uh, the term is opposed to "narrowband", neither of which were coined
> >>until only a few years ago. *"Broadband" was coined to provide
> >>differentiation from the more common dial-up. *Speed most certainly has
> >>to do with "broadband".
>
> >>>Broadband is a networking technology
>
> >>I disagree. *"Broadband" is a generic term to describe any of SEVERAL
> >>high-speed connectivity technologies.
>
> >>>speed is a characteristic of a connection.
>
> >>That goes without saying.
>
> >>>You can have very slow broadband
>
> >>Sure, relative to a higher rate broadband.
>
> >>>just as you can have very fast baseband.
>
> >>"Baseband"? *My spell-checker doesn't even recognize that one. *Thatis
> >>the first I've heard of it.
>
> > So, have you ever heard of 10BaseT Ethernet? *The "Base" part
> > means that it is a baseband signal.
>
> > Baseband networking is where the signal is anchored at zero hertz
> > and goes up from there. *10BaseT uses the first 10 megahertz of
> > the bandwidth. *Broadband means that the signal is not anchored
> > to zero, and the signal can be relocated in referece to the zero
> > point. *This is important when you are doing multiplexing (ie,
> > carrying several signals on one line). *Just like you can have
> > 10BaseT, which is 10-megabit baseband Ethernet over twisted
> > pair, you can also have 10BroadT, or other speeds, or other
> > physical cable mediums.
>
> >>Words mean things. *Broadband infers high - or higher - speed relative
> >>to older, much slower technologies such as dial-up.
>
> > I agree that words mean things. *That is why I attempted to help
> > educate you on what Broadband means.
>
> > -john-
>
> Hmmm,
> Where is this idea coming from broadband infers to high speed?

It' obviously coming from people's experience in using it. They went
from dial-up to broadband and therefor think that it's called
broadband because web pages load much faster.

John is correct in pointing out that it actually refers to the fact
that in broadband, the transmission carries multiple frequencies,
which can be used for different purposes. In the case of cable TV,
that means the same cable can carry both digital internet traffic as
well as analog or digital TV encoded on seperate frequencies. In the
case of DSL, the wire can carry both analog voice and the internet
data in different bands.

With baseband, an example of which is ethernet, the frequency spectrum
is not divided up and the whole spectrum is used for the one signal.



> Broadband infers carrying capacity(voice, data, video, anakog or
> digital)/ Ever heard of wideband? Higher capacity does not necessarily
> mean higher speed. Ever heard of throughput?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Arvin]

Did anybody actually bother to look it up?


Britannica Concise Encyclopedia Browse

broadband

Term describing the radiation from a source that produces a broad,
continuous spectrum of frequencies (contrasted with a laser, which produces
a single frequency or very narrow range of frequencies).

A typical broadband-light source that can be used for either emission or
absorption spectroscopy is a metal filament heated to a high temperature,
such as a tungsten lightbulb. Sunlight is also broadband radiation. See also
broadband technology.


x
broadband technology

Telecommunications devices, lines, or technologies that allow communication
over a wide band of frequencies, and especially over a range of frequencies
divided into multiple independent channels for the simultaneous transmission
of different signals.

Broadband systems allow voice, data, and video to be broadcast over the same
medium at the same time. They may also allow multiple data channels to be
broadcast simultaneously.



© 2005 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.


"Jim Redelfs" <jim.redelfs@NOSPAMredelfs.com> wrote in message
news:jim.redelfs-15BF6A.20283625032008@news.phx.highwinds-media.com...
| In article
| <john-FE7596.06160325032008@sn-radius.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
| "John A. Weeks III" <john@johnweeks.com> wrote:
|
| > Speed has nothing to do with broadband.
|
| Uh, the term is opposed to "narrowband", neither of which were coined
| until only a few years ago. "Broadband" was coined to provide
| differentiation from the more common dial-up. Speed most certainly has
| to do with "broadband".
|
| > Broadband is a networking technology
|
| I disagree. "Broadband" is a generic term to describe any of SEVERAL
| high-speed connectivity technologies.
|
| > speed is a characteristic of a connection.
|
| That goes without saying.
|
| > You can have very slow broadband
|
| Sure, relative to a higher rate broadband.
|
| > just as you can have very fast baseband.
|
| "Baseband"? My spell-checker doesn't even recognize that one. That is
| the first I've heard of it.
|
| Words mean things. Broadband infers high - or higher - speed relative
| to older, much slower technologies such as dial-up.
|
| > Or you can have any speed you want on some other
| > networking technology.
|
| Ethernet? Wi-Fi? Bluetooth? Divining Rods?
| --
| :)
| JR

[Rod Speed]

trader4@optonline.net wrote:
> On Mar 25, 11:39 pm, Tony Hwang <drago...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>> John A. Weeks III wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> In article
>>> <jim.redelfs-15BF6A.20283625032...@news.phx.highwinds-media.com>,
>>> Jim Redelfs <jim.rede...@NOSPAMredelfs.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> In article
>>>> <john-FE7596.06160325032...@sn-radius.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
>>>> "John A. Weeks III" <j...@johnweeks.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Speed has nothing to do with broadband.
>>
>>>> Uh, the term is opposed to "narrowband", neither of which were
>>>> coined until only a few years ago. "Broadband" was coined to
>>>> provide differentiation from the more common dial-up. Speed most
>>>> certainly has to do with "broadband".
>>
>>>>> Broadband is a networking technology
>>
>>>> I disagree. "Broadband" is a generic term to describe any of
>>>> SEVERAL high-speed connectivity technologies.
>>
>>>>> speed is a characteristic of a connection.
>>
>>>> That goes without saying.
>>
>>>>> You can have very slow broadband
>>
>>>> Sure, relative to a higher rate broadband.
>>
>>>>> just as you can have very fast baseband.
>>
>>>> "Baseband"? My spell-checker doesn't even recognize that one. That
>>>> is the first I've heard of it.
>>
>>> So, have you ever heard of 10BaseT Ethernet? The "Base" part
>>> means that it is a baseband signal.
>>
>>> Baseband networking is where the signal is anchored at zero hertz
>>> and goes up from there. 10BaseT uses the first 10 megahertz of
>>> the bandwidth. Broadband means that the signal is not anchored
>>> to zero, and the signal can be relocated in referece to the zero
>>> point. This is important when you are doing multiplexing (ie,
>>> carrying several signals on one line). Just like you can have
>>> 10BaseT, which is 10-megabit baseband Ethernet over twisted
>>> pair, you can also have 10BroadT, or other speeds, or other
>>> physical cable mediums.
>>
>>>> Words mean things. Broadband infers high - or higher - speed
>>>> relative to older, much slower technologies such as dial-up.
>>
>>> I agree that words mean things. That is why I attempted to help
>>> educate you on what Broadband means.
>>
>>> -john-
>>
>> Hmmm,
>> Where is this idea coming from broadband infers to high speed?
>
> It' obviously coming from people's experience in using it. They went
> from dial-up to broadband and therefor think that it's called
> broadband because web pages load much faster.

> John is correct in pointing out that it actually refers to the fact
> that in broadband, the transmission carries multiple frequencies,
> which can be used for different purposes.

Nope, its still broadband when its a single frequency with a lot of bandwidth
used for one purpose, most obviously with fibre to the home etc.

> In the case of cable TV,

Just one form of broadband.

> that means the same cable can carry both digital internet traffic
> as well as analog or digital TV encoded on seperate frequencies.

Its still broadband if the same technology is JUST used for net access.

> In the case of DSL, the wire can carry both
> analog voice and the internet data in different bands.

But naked DSL is STILL broadband, most obviously with ADSL2+

> With baseband, an example of which is ethernet, the frequency spectrum
> is not divided up and the whole spectrum is used for the one signal.

And gigibit is still broadband. Its just not used for net
access because the distance is much too limited for that.

Fibre optic is tho.

>> Broadband infers carrying capacity(voice, data, video, anakog or
>> digital)/ Ever heard of wideband? Higher capacity does not
>> necessarily mean higher speed. Ever heard of throughput?

[Doc]

On Mar 23, 10:53*pm, "Tomes" <ask...@here.net> wrote:

> Dunno if this is still relevant but I just subscribed to this NG and found
> this post....
>
> I haveEmbarq. *The only problem that I have with them is that they do not
> support Usenet.


By that, you mean you can't access Usenet through your mail reader?
Nothing stopping you from using Google Groups, correct?

[LouB]

Doc wrote:
> On Mar 23, 10:53 pm, "Tomes" <ask...@here.net> wrote:
>
>> Dunno if this is still relevant but I just subscribed to this NG and found
>> this post....
>>
>> I haveEmbarq. The only problem that I have with them is that they do not
>> support Usenet.
>
>
> By that, you mean you can't access Usenet through your mail reader?
> Nothing stopping you from using Google Groups, correct?

DO NOT use GG get Thunderbird